> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:05 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: FBX3 AND CFMX > > > Hi, > > I think you may need to provide a better example of what your talking > about in terms of a "bastardized Fusebox app". Although I have never > encountered anything similar to what you are describing, I am sure > someone else has. Even if the app is "Fusebox-ish", I would still be > able to quickly grasp what has been done--if I cant, the app is most > likely very dissimilar to Fusebox. Granted, if a developer were to > totally rework the core files, some issues might arise; however, just > deviating from the methodology in some ways doesn't make it more > difficult to follow. Besides, most developers don't fiddle around with > the core files. You will usually find differences in file naming or a > different approach to nested layouts or the fbx_Switch.cfm. Although > part of the overall methodology, none of those portions are set in > stone. For example; Some developers like to use frm_formName.cfm for all > forms, but it's not part of the "official" Fusebox spec.
This is all fine. John Paul Ashenfelter's post was the one that I first responded to, and I was talking about troubleshooting applications. My only point was that (per his mention of people changing Fusebox to suit their needs and sometimes doing it badly) if an application is not written well, it doesn't matter what framework is used. Now while I might be able to troubleshoot Fusebox applications and happen to come across one where things are quite different, I might spend the same amount of time trying to figure out what has changed as I would on an application that has it's own framework. This is subjective, of course, and without two real-world examples, is only my opinion that badly written apps are hard to troubleshoot, period. > I do not know how much experience you have had with Fusebox, but it > sounds to me--and I do not mean this as an insult in any way--as if you > aren't very familiar with how it all comes together. No offense taken! Since I've been fine-tuning my own framework for quite some time, I am not too familiar with FB3. I looked at it a bit when it came out, but by that time I was very comfortable with what I had. I have more experience with prior versions, but only worked with them some years back when I was at another company. As you know, my original assertion was not that it was bad, but that it seemed like a lot of variations were out there because the community as a whole was not in on the development of each version, so they had to make their own changes to parts that didn't work for them. My only contention was that this might be something for the community to address with whatever "standards body" Fusebox may have. The one thing that I know for sure is, I won't be seeing the Fusebox light any time soon, but like people that use Fusebox and are quite comfortable with it, so am I with what I've built for myself. I'll still take a look at FBMX when it comes out; I like to be somewhat familiar with the current version. --Andy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
